<p> This study examined the reliability and validity of the Global Relational Attitudes Conflict Exam (GRACE) Scale. Individuals were studied using an online survey to determine if the GRACE scale had reliable and interpretable components, and if the scale produced statistically significant levels of internal reliability. The study also evaluated for both convergent and discriminant validity through comparison of the scale with several selected assessments. A total of 333 participants participated in the survey. An exploratory factor analysis of the data produced from survey results revealed that the GRACE scale had reliable and interpretable components. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficient comparisons of the data demonstrated that the scale was internally reliable and valid. The hypotheses were confirmed. </p><p> <i>Keywords</i>: grace, gratitude, appreciation, thankfulness, revenge, vengeance, relational conflict</p>

<p> The present study investigated differences between individuals with social anxiety disorder (SAD) and non-anxious controls (NAC) on measures of thought processes and anxiety responses surrounding an anxiety-provoking situation. Participants gave a spontaneous speech to an audience and reported their anxiety throughout. Measures of trait decentering and anxiety, situational anxiety, negative thoughts and believability, and willingness to repeat the task were administered. Compared to NAC, individuals with SAD reported a higher prevalence of negative thoughts, found the thoughts more believable, reported lower levels of trait decentering, and reported less willingness to repeat an anxiety-provoking task. Collapsing the groups, we found an inverse relationship between the amount of negative thoughts and willingness to repeat the task, and a positive correlation between decentering and willingness. We did not find evidence to support that decentering and believability moderate this relationship. The present study partially supports the proposed model of SAD, as the SAD and NAC groups differed at each step of the proposed model, however moderation analyses were not significant.</p>

<p> There is limited understanding of the variables that impact trainee performance in clinical settings. As such, investigating the tools used to assess performance was warranted. In the first part of the present research study, I investigated the independent factors that comprised the FPEF using 294 archival forms completed by clinical supervisors at the California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Francisco. The five conceptually derived domains of clinical competency of the FPEF included: psychological intake, evaluation and assessment; clinical interventions; professional roles and behaviors; self-examination and development; and supervision. A principal factor analysis was conducted to determine whether the items of the FPEF comprised performance factors that were based on these FPEF domains. Results yielded a four-factor solution based on how the items clustered together. Thus, subscales were retitled as follows: Clinical Development, Professional Roles and Behaviors, Psychological Conceptualization and Intervention, and Psychological Assessment Skills. The second part of the present study included trainee self-ratings and supervisor ratings on the FPEFs for 47 school-based mental health trainees. This part of the study focused on whether the internal psychological variables of role conflict, role ambiguity, and self-efficacy (domain specific), and the external variables of both organizational support and supervisory support were associated with performance ratings on the FPEF. Findings indicated that the internal and external variables were both associated with trainees' performances across various domains. However, some of these relationships were contrary to what was expected. Organizational support and supervisory support were found to have negative associations with specific performance domains, which may have been due to limitations of the instruments or moderating variables that were not measured in this study.</p>

This research began as an examination of the problem solving strategies of individuals who believe they can control reinforcements they recelve (internals) and those who believe that outside forces control reinforcements (externals) under different conditions of skill and chance. This developed into a study of the cognitive functioning of internals and externals in concept formation tasks. Internal and external persons were identified using the internal-external locus of control scale developed by J.B. Rotter and his colleagues. Three studies were conducted uSlng different tasks and groups of Subjects. The subjects of the first study were required to find a principle relating one of two response words to a list of five stimulus words. There were fifty trials using different sets of words. Three groups of subjects were used, each made up of internals and externals. The group under the skill condition was instructed that their performance depended primarily on their own skill; the group under the chance 1 condition (quasi chance) was instructed that their performance on the task would probably be no better than chance due to the extreme difficulty of the task; and the group under chance 2 (pure chance) were told that their performance on the task was totally controlled by chance as the arrangement of the words was purely arbitrary. It was expected that internals would perform better than externals under the skill condition while externals would perform better than internals under chance 2. Subjects' perception of, and reactions to, the task were measured by a post-task questionnaire. The results did not uphold the predictions. Externals, relative to internals, utilised, produced and changed significantly more solution hypotheses while working on the task. The two groups did not differ in the number of correct answers and both of them were unsuccessful in deciphering the principle. In terms of subjects' reactions to the task, it was found that the internals reacted differently to the skill and chance 2 conditions, while externals were stable across these conditions. Moreover, subjects construed the chance 1 condition as resembling a skill condition. The different ways ln which internals and externals handled their solution hypotheses was further investigated in the second study. Two groups, one of internals and one of externals, were asked to scan a list of characteristics describing an object, and then to scan another list containing objects, one of which was best described by the characteristics. The two lists were presented separately to the subjects in order to discover whether subjects needed to switchback between the two lists while attempting to identify the correct object. The subjects' reaction times in studying the characteristics (preparation time) and in naming the appropriate objects (solution time) were recorded. The subjects' perception of and reactions to the task were measured by a post-task questionnaire. The results strongly supported the predictions: the internals preparation and solution times were significantly faster than those of the externals who also used more switchbacks than internals. Moreover, both groups performed equally well on the task (in terms of naming the appropriate objects). Analysis of the subjects' perception of the task indicated that internals perceived the task to be more skill controlled than externals. The third study was conducted to clarify some methodological problems associated with the first study and to further investigate the problem solving behaviour of internals and externals. Subjects were presented with a series of sets one per trial for twenty four trials, each of which consisted of two letters and two numbers. Certain sets were constructed using a common principle and subjects were required to identify the principle. Subjects perception of, and reactions to the experiment were measured by a post task questionnaire. The results showed that more externals were successful at finding the principle than internals. Externals used less trials per solution hypothesis and guessed on more trials than internals. Both groups had similar numbers of correct answers. More internals than externals, however, employed complex solution hypotheses. It was also found that the internals confidence in finding the principle before commencing the task was higher than that of the externals. Taken in conjunction the three studies indicate that finding the solution per se to the tasks did not differentiate internals from externals as readily as their different approaches to the tasks. The internals were more cautious and systematic in handling their solution hypotheses and processed information more efficiently and thoroughly. The externals, on the other hand, adopted a &quot;butterfly&quot; approach to testing their solution hypotheses, readily switching between them and returning to previously rejected hypotheses. They were less able than internals to process simultaneously two aspects of the task. It was concluded that the different problem solving behaviours of internals and externals resemble distinctive cognitive styles. Whether these cognitive styles are effective in terms of identifying the solution to a problem seems to depend largely on three main factors: the skill element of the task, the type of task, and the level of task difficulty.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, 1991. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 53-01, Section: B, page: 0571. Chair: Jerrold L. Shapiro.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, 1996. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 57-08, Section: B, page: 5390.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, 1999. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 60-11, Section: B, page: 5837. Adviser: William J. Froming.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, 2003. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-09, Section: B, page: 4675. Chair: William Froming.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, 2005. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-06, Section: B, page: 3414. Adviser: Steve Lovett.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Canterbury, 2007. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 103-125). Also available via the World Wide Web.